RUSH: Let’s get into the election fraud aspect of the current state of affairs. There are two lawsuits that are out there at present, and they are not both being sponsored by the campaign. The campaign is alleging the fraud. The Trump campaign, their suit is Rudy’s and Jenna Ellis’, and they are alleging fraud in the various states. There is another action taking place that’s purely constitutional, and it is being mounted by people that are not part of the presidential campaign. Ted Cruz is part of this movement.

And Sunday night on Levin’s show on the Fox News Channel he had a fascinating guest, a pollster by the name of Patrick Basham, B-a-s-h-a-m. Now, I didn’t hear his name pronounced; so I’m not sure how — he might pronounce it Basham. I’m not sure. I don’t mean to be mispronouncing the name. He is the founding director of the Democracy Institute. And the reason that I’m asking this question about how in the world is Make America Great Again controversial to a majority of Americans? I understand the answer. The answer is obvious.

If the American education system from kindergarten through the university level has succeeded in two generations in corrupting that many young people, if they have had that much success in convincing that many people that this country is hateful and is worthy of being hated, then — well, I don’t know. I know that’s been going on, but I think it ought to open people’s minds. The reason I tried to make the point, Make America Great Again controversial? Who in the world could oppose this?

Well, of course, that question deals with people who’ve been raised as Americans on the true story of the American founding. But then again, you’re drawn back to, well, how many millions of Americans have been denied that true story? How many millions of Americans have not been taught that story? That’s the question. What numbers of people are we talking about here? Well, the reason that fascinates me is because Patrick Basham’s way of looking at what happened here is a fascinating thing to me.

He didn’t focus on the specific allegations of election fraud. Instead, what he did was explain that traditional markers associated with an incumbent’s almost inevitable victory were all lined up to result in an overwhelming Trump win. He said it was all there. All of the traditional markers — you know, the incumbent return rate in the House of Representatives is 95%. What that means is that the incumbent wins 95% of elections. It is really tough to beat an incumbent anything. It’s especially tough to beat an incumbent president.

And this guy, Basham, says that all of the traditional markers that you would look at that are associated with the incumbent’s practically guaranteed reelection were all lined up to result in an overwhelming Trump win. And he made the point, he told everybody on Sunday night, the fact that Trump did not win just makes no sense. Forget your partisan affiliation. Forget any of that. It just didn’t make any sense.

Now, he first set this all up — he wrote a column for the Spectator on November 27. And I remember talking to you about that piece. I have it. I printed it out again. “Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling. If Only Cranks Find The Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank.”

Now, one of his main points in this article was that Trump’s standing with various groups improved across the board. Now, you’ve heard this. He did better with African-Americans. He did better with Latinos. He did better with women. He did better with the young. He did better with animal rights. Any group you want to say or you want to point out almost universally Trump did better. And this was especially apparent with Trump’s support among blacks and Hispanics.

Do you know what? Trump’s support among blacks and Hispanics rose to levels not seen since Nixon’s win in 1960. Again, Democrat fraud robbed Nixon of a victory that he had secured. And everybody acknowledges that one now. At the same time that Trump was setting records with Latino and black support, Biden’s standing with those groups declined.

Now, that fact alone should have presaged a Trump victory. And in a normal year, it would have. How many times have you heard, if the Democrats lose 15% of the black vote, it’s over for ’em; and the same thing with Hispanic vote, it’s over for ’em? Well, pretty much, that’s what happened here, but there are other metrics associated with elections that invariably predict them. He’s not talking about polls. Instead he’s talking about everything surrounding polls, such as red waves, geographic trends, bake sales. I mean, he gets into all kinds of things.

Now, the article is powerful, but sometimes hearing somebody speak has more resonance, and that’s why it was fascinating to hear the guy on Levin’s show. There’s a six-minute-long statement that has been viewed by 1.6 million people in 24 hours. We don’t have the whole thing here, but I got a couple of audio sound bites, and let me have you hear Mr. Basham in his own words. Levin says to him, “I would like you to walk through these issues you found to be deeply puzzling.”

BASHAM: Trump improved his performance, national performance over 2016 by almost 20%. No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes. Donald Trump did very well, even better than four years earlier with the white working class. He held his own with women and suburban voters. He did very well with Catholics, he improved his vote among Jewish voters.

He had the best minority performance for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960. If you took 100 well-informed about the American political scene, 100 observers who were sequestered for the actual election night and since, you laid out all those numbers, and you asked them; so who do you think won the election? 99 at least out of those hundred independent, well-informed observers, would say, “Well, obviously, Trump”; right?

RUSH: Right. He would. But he didn’t. But there’s even more and we’ll get to that in a minute. Now the next one, he says for Biden to have improved only — this is what I mentioned in the first hour, this is what has puzzled me from day one about this election. Biden only improved in the swing state cities that he needed. He didn’t mount any improvement for the Democrat Party, as a Democrat candidate. The Democrat candidate, Biden, whoever you want, just generic person with a D next to his name, Biden, whatever, there was no improvement in the election returns and in the number of votes other than in the swing state — not even just the states. The cities in the swing states that he needed. Nowhere else. Now, it’s not impossible, but Mr. Basham says it’s just implausible.

BASHAM: He has apparently allegedly received more votes than any candidate for president in American history and yet he has done very, very poorly in most of the country except where it absolutely mattered. Another way of looking at this is to look at what I call the nonpolling metrics. These metrics have a 100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election. In 2016 they all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling.

So if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these nonpolling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate this time for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others. It is not statistically impossible, but it’s statistically implausible.

RUSH: What he’s talking about is that Biden only improved the Democrats’ performance in the presidential election, say over Obama, he only improved in those five swing-state cities in the five swing states that he needed. Now, that is the fingerprint, the footprint of an election in Venezuela. And it is. And that’s where the machines and the software that everybody was using here came from. That’s exactly how tinhorn dictators arrange their election returns to make it look like they miraculously pulled out a really big victory.

And look where it happened? Why, it happened in the very places that the man needed to win, or the candidate needed. And that is what — well, there are a lot of other things that puzzle me. The Fox News call for Arizona that was so early and so forth. But it’s just, as Mr. Basham says, it’s just implausible. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50% over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90%. That’s a level below which Democrat presidential candidates usually lose. That’s why we say, if the Democrat gets something under 90, 85%, loses 10 to 15%, they are in trouble.

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35%. Now, with 60% or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democrat presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. With 60 or less of the national Hispanic vote, it’s not mathematically possible for Biden to have won Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico. Now, we’re not saying he won Florida; just saying that those are the numbers. Bellwether states then swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio, and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with big wins for Trump.

Now, we’re also told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But at the same time he won a record low of 17% of counties. He only won 524 counties as opposed to the 873 counties that Obama won in 2008. Yet Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes? Now, a lot of people have focused on this because this one is glaring. Biden did better than Obama? That’s gotta tick Obama off. But he actually didn’t, when you get right down to it.

“Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.” Mr. Basham go through a series of things that you’ve probably heard the points made. He’s got nine or 10 of ’em here, but let me read the first one.

“Late on election night with Trump comfortably ahead -” and by comfortably ahead we’re talking 800,000 votes in Pennsylvania “– many swing states stopped counting ballots,” at roughly the same time. Just incredible. “In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers.”

What the hell? Now, we all know this, and everybody involved is denying that it happened, and they’re saying there’s no way it happened, and you’re making a big deal out of nothing, and even Republicans in these states, “Oh, no, no, no. It didn’t happen.” But it did. The counting was stopped. The observers were kicked out. They were not allowed back in. They weren’t allowed close enough to see what was being done.

Number two. “Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.”

In fact, I’ve gotta take a break here real quick, but have you heard about what happened to Ware County, Georgia? This is incredible. They tested the Dominion tabulators. They got an equal number of votes for Trump and Biden, they fed them into the machine, equal number of votes, equal number of ballots voting Trump, equal number of ballots voting the Biden. The result that was spat out was a 26% lead for Biden.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There is one other real oddity here that Mr. Patrick Basham points out here, and this is from his column back on November 27th, “Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling.” And one of the reasons is statistical anomalies. Listen to this. In Georgia — keep in mind every Republican elected official in Georgia is saying, “Nothing to see here. Why, everything is done. This a verified, certified election. Nothing to see here. Nothing went wrong. We stand behind our electoral system.”

Okay. “In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. ” No big deal there. That’s just the starting point. “For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.” So Trump begins losing to Biden with 89% of the votes counted for the next 53 batches of votes. And every batch has a different number of votes in them. They’re coming in from all over the place throughout the state. Every one of those 53 batches of votes Biden led Trump by 50.05 to 49.95. “It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.” Something really odd.

Then of course “the ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law.” There’s all kinds of those, and we’ve heard about all those things.

But there’s such overwhelming data that is in complete denial of common sense. Or, as Mr. Basham would say, plausibility. Georgia secretary of state says he’s gonna recertify the election results after the recount and nothing will be done there.